Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Columbia

Rashidian v. Garland

District of ColumbiaAna C. ReyesDecided March 8, 2024No. 1:23-cv-01187

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 a.m. CT; the Passim connector counts the live collection, which can differ by the day's additions and retirements (which total to quote). Coverage: of the 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 2026. Some of what that search finds are not mandamus decisions. Tell us about a decision we're missing.

These are counts of past written decisions and dockets, not predictions of how any case will be decided. A distribution appears only when at least 5 decisions (or 5 dockets) are behind it; smaller groups are listed, not summarized. How it's counted.

What the decision decided

Each value cites the passage it was read from. Values read by a model were checked against that passage; values read by rule come from fixed text patterns. Read the decision before relying on either.

Agency Department of State Read by a model
To date, officials at the U.S. Consulate in Dubai have not issued final decisions on their applications.
Form or filing 221(g) (consular refusal); DS-160 (nonimmigrant visa) Read by a model
Plaintiffs Negin Khosravaninezhad and Soroodeh Khalili are Iranian citizens who, in 2022, applied for nonimmigrant visas to travel to the United States.
What the suit asked for Finish 221(g) processing Read by a model
Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Defendants to render final decisions within fourteen days.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 5, is GRANTED.
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim Read by a model
Defendants’ Motion seeks dismissal both under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 5, is GRANTED.
Disposition Dismissed The case or every delay claim was dismissed for a reason other than mootness. Read by a model
And it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Dkt. 1, and this case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Prevailing party Government Read by a model
It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 5, is GRANTED.
The delay claim Dismissed Read by a model
Taken together, the TRAC factors cut Defendants’ way, and so the Court must dismiss Plaintiffs’ unreasonable-delay claims.
The other claims Dismissed Read by a model
The Court therefore dismisses this claim as well.
Months pending 20.8 months from the application to the court's decision Read by a model
Plaintiff Khosravaninezhad applied for an F-1 visa in June 2022 to enroll in an astrophysics Ph.D. program at the University of California, Riverside.
TRAC factors The court weighed the TRAC factors
  • 1. Rule of reasonfavors the government
  • 2. Congressional timetablefavors the government
  • 3. Human health and welfarefavors the applicant
  • 4. Competing prioritiesfavors the government
  • 5. Interests prejudicedfavors the applicant
  • 6. No impropriety neededneutral
Read by a model
The upshot is that Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that Defendants are not following a rule of reason in processing visa applications, and the first two TRAC factors support dismissal.
The government's delay arguments First-in, first-out processing accepted; Line-jumping accepted Read by a model
But the fact that Defendants do not make final decisions in the exact order in which they receive applications does not plausibly show that they are not working in an orderly fashion.
Threshold rulings None Read by a model
Nationality Iran Read by a model
Plaintiffs are both Iranian citizens who applied for F visas through the U.S. Consulate in Dubai.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:23-cv-01187
Filed
April 28, 2023
Ended
March 12, 2024
Suit's filing to its end
319 days
How it ended
Dismissed on jurisdiction or the merits
From the record
order 2024-03-08 for the defendants, ground not stated; idb disp 14 (dismissed: other)

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit authority

District decisions bind no one. On the questions this decision raises, the Supreme Court decisions and the circuit's published decisions listed here bind this court; a circuit disposition marked nonprecedential was not published as precedent and is persuasive only. ImmCite status as read November 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.